Conocimientos y tecnología agroecológica en España

Se analiza la evolución de la generación de conocimientos y tecnologías agroecológicas en España, en los últimos años, tomando como principal referencia las actas de la Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica (SEAE). Las conclusiones señalan que esta, es todavía escasa, descoordinada y subsidiaria y revela que esta comenzó con un fuerte sesgo a la sustitución de insumos, pero que ahora hay cierta tendencia hacia enfoques más holísticos.The evolution of knowledge generation and agro-ecological technologies in Spain in recent last years is analysed, taking as main reference the proceedings of the Spanish Society of Organic Agriculture (SEAE). The findings indicate that this is still scarce, uncoordinated and subsidiary and reveals that this began with a strong bias input substitution, but there is now a trend towards more holistic approaches.Eje A5: Sistemas de conocimientoFacultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestale

Organic Action Plans. Development, implementation and evaluation. A resource manual for the organic food and farming sector

In 2004, the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming was launched. Many European countries have also developed national Organic Action Plans to promote and support organic agriculture. As part of the EU funded ORGAP project (“European Action Plan of Organic Food and Farming - Development of criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the EU Action Plan for Organic Agriculture”) a toolbox to evaluate and monitor the implementation of national and European Action Plans has been developed. In order to communicate the results of this project as widely as possible, a practical manual for initiating and evaluating Organic Action Plans has been produced. This manual has been created to inspire the people, organisations and institutions involved, or with an interest, in the organic food and farming sector to engage in the initiation, review, revision and renewal of regional, national and European Organic Action Plans. The objectives of the manual are to provide: • a tool for stakeholder involvement in future Action Plan development and implementation processes at EU, national and regional level • a guide to the use of the Organic Action Plan Evaluation Toolbox (ORGAPET) developed through the project The manual summarises the key lessons learnt from more than 10 years experience of development, implementation and evaluation of Organic Action Plans throughout Europe. The Organic Action Plan Evaluation Toolbox (ORGAPET), which includes comprehensive information to support the Organic Action Plan development and evaluation process is included with the manual as a CD-ROM, and is also accessible on-line at www.orgap.org/orgapet. The ORGAP website www.orgap.org provides a further information on the project and the European and national organic action plans. Published by: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland; IFOAM EU Group, Brussels Table of contents Foreword 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 About this manual 3 1.2 Organic farming – origins, definition & principles 6 1.3 Development of organic food & farming in Europe 8 1.3.1 Organic food and farming regulation in Europe 10 1.3.2 Policy support for organic food and farming in Europe 11 2 Organic Action Plans – what are they about? 16 2.1 Why Organic Action Plans? 16 2.2 European Organic Action Plan 21 2.3 Overview of national and regional Organic Action Plans 23 3 Planning and implementing Organic Action Plans 28 3.1 Policy development 28 3.2 Defining organic sector development needs and potential 31 3.3 Defining policy goals and objectives 34 3.4 Involving stakeholders 40 3.4.1 The case for stakeholder involvement 40 3.4.2 Identifying relevant stakeholders 42 3.4.3 Participatory approaches for stakeholders involvement 44 3.5 Decision making: selecting, integrating and prioritising relevant measures 46 3.5.1 Deciding on policy instruments and action points 47 3.5.2 Priorities for action – allocating resources 50 3.6 Implementing Organic Action Plans 52 3.7 Including monitoring and evaluation of Organic Action Plans from outset 56 3.8 Managing communication 58 3.9 Development of Action Plans in countries that joined the EU in 2004 and later 59 4 Evaluating Organic Action Plans 61 4.1 Principles of evaluation 61 4.2 Conducting an evaluation 64 4.3 Evaluating Action Plan design and implementation 70 4.3.1 Evaluating programme design and implementation processes 70 4.3.2 Evaluating programme coherence 72 4.3.3 Evaluating stakeholder involvement 74 4.4 Evaluating Action Plan effects 78 4.4.1 Developing and using indicators for evaluation 78 4.5 Overall evaluation of Organic Action Plans – judging success 85 4.6 Evaluating Action Plans in countries that joined the EU in 2004 and later 89 5 Organic Action Plans – the Golden Rules 91 5.1 Key elements of Organic Action Plan development 91 5.2 The Golden rules for Organic Action Plan 93 References 96 Annex Detailed synopsis of ORGAPET 10

Plans d’action pour l’agriculture biologique. Développement, mise en œuvre et évaluation. Un manuel de ressources pour le secteur de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture biologiques

Avant-propos La Commission européenne a publié en juin 2004 le Plan d’action européen pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture biologiques. Avec ce plan, la Commission visait à évaluer la situation de l’agriculture biologique et à fonder les bases de développement de sa politique future. Au niveau national, de nombreux gouvernements ont également développé des plans d’action pour promouvoir l’agriculture biologique. Il est donc apparu nécessaire de considérer comment de tels plans d’action pouvaient être évalués avec succès. Le plan d’action européen a été la motivation principale pour la DG Recherche de la Commission européenne de financer un projet de soutien spécifique, l’ORGAP, Projet No. CT-2005-006591 au sein du 6ème programme-cadre de recherche. Ce projet, intitulé “Plan d’action européen pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture biologiques – développement de critères et de procédures d’évaluation du Plan d’action UE pour l’agriculture biologique”, a débuté en mai 2005 et s’est terminé en avril 2008. Des outils ont été développés au sein du projet pour évaluer et surveiller la mise en œuvre du Plan d’action européen dans les domaines suivants : information, formation et pédagogie, recherche, production, traitement, développement du marché, certification et dépenses publiques. Ces outils ont été testés sur un échantillon de Plans d’action nationaux existants, et pour partie aussi sur le Plan d’action européen, en plaçant principalement l’accent sur les processus de mise en œuvre. En outre, des recommandations politiques de la Commission européenne, des autorités nationales et autres acteurs ont été émises. Afin de communiquer les recommandations relatives à ce projet aussi largement que possible, ce manuel pratique d’initiation et d’évaluation des plans d’action a été créé. La fonction de ce manuel est double : a) Outil de participation des acteurs dans le développement de futurs plans et mise en œuvre au niveau UE, national et régional ; b) Guide d’utilisation d’ORGAPET, des outils d’évaluation du projet ORGAP (fourni sur CD-ROM avec le manuel et disponible en ligne sur le site www.orgap.org). Le manuel, créé dans le cadre du projet ORGAP, est largement basé sur les documents inclus dans l’Organic Action Plan Évaluation Toolbox (Outils d’évaluation du plan d’action biologique) (ORGAPET). Les institutions suivantes ont contribué au développement d’ORGAPET et du manuel : - Université de Hohenheim (UHO), Stuttgart (Prof. Stephan Dabbert, Christian Eichert) ; - Aberystwyth University (UWA), Pays de Galles, Grande-Bretagne (Dr. Nic Lampkin, Ian Jeffreys) ; - Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona (UNIVPM), Italie (Prof. Raffaele Zanoli, Dr. Daniela Vairo) ; - University of Southern Denmark (USD), Danemark (Dr. Johannes Michelsen)

Agroecology in Mediterranean Europe: Genesis, State and Perspectives

[EN] The Mediterranean agro-food systems need to be properly managed. A promising pathway is the transition towards more sustainable food systems through agroecology, which represents the ecology of food systems. In this paper, the state-of-the-art of agroecology is described for three representative euro-Mediterranean countries: Italy, Greece, and Spain. The analysis has been partly based on results of a dedicated literature search and partly on grey literature and expert knowledge. After an overview of the history of agroecology, targeted research and education, collective action (political and social), and some agroecological practices in the three countries are presented. These countries share a rather similar use of the term "agroecology", but they differ regarding (i) the existence/extent of strong civil and social movements; (ii) the type of study/educational programmes, and the relative importance of different scientific disciplines and their evolution; (iii) the development of political support and legal frameworks; and (iv) the elaboration of concepts to rediscover traditional practices and apply new ones, often taken from the organic agriculture sector. Agroecology is an emerging concept for the Mediterranean agricultural sector, with huge potential due to the peculiar socio-cultural, bio-physical, and political-economic features of the region. To boost agroecology in Mediterranean Europe, better networking and engagement of different actors within a coherent institutional framework supporting the transition is strongly needed.Migliorini, P.; Gkisakis, V.; Gonzálvez, V.; Raigón Jiménez, MD.; Bàrberi, P. (2018). Agroecology in Mediterranean Europe: Genesis, State and Perspectives. Sustainability. 10(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082724S272410

Preclinical Studies of the Biosafety and Efficacy of Human Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Pre-Seeded into β-TCP Scaffolds after Transplantation

Background: Cell-Based Therapies (CBT) constitute a valid procedure for increasing the quantity and quality of bone in areas with an inadequate bone volume. However, safety and efficacy should be investigated prior to clinical application. The objective of this study was to evaluate the biodistribution, safety and osteogenic capacity of bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells (hBMMSCs) pre-seeded into β-tricalcium phosphate (TCP) and implanted into NOD/SCID mice at subcutaneous and intramuscular sites. Methods: hBMMSCs were isolated, characterized and then cultured in vitro on a porous β-TCP scaffold. Cell viability and attachment were analyzed and then hBMMSCs seeded constructs were surgically placed at subcutaneous and intramuscular dorsal sites into NOD/SCID mice. Acute and subchronic toxicity, cell biodistribution and efficacy were investigated. Results: There were no deaths or adverse events in treated mice during the 48-hour observation period, and no toxic response was observed in mice. In the 12-week subchronic toxicity study, no mortalities, abnormal behavioral symptoms or clinical signs were observed in the saline control mice or the hBMMSCs/β-TCP groups. Finally, our results showed the bone-forming capacity of hBMMSCs/β-TCP since immunohistochemical expression of human osteocalcin was detected from week 7. Conclusions: These results show that transplantation of hBMMSCs/β-TCP in NOD/SCID mice are safe and effective, and might be applied to human bone diseases in future clinical trials

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research